Is Planckian Discreteness Observable in Cosmology?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Inhomogeneities from Planckian Discreteness
3. Scalar and Tensor Power Spectra
4. The Gravitational Miracle
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | Here, we refer to the fact that information is lost in the process where the universe goes from a quantum description to a classical one whose observable features do not allow for the reconstruction of the initial state. In the standard inflationary paradigm, the process by which the universe becomes what we observe at present times is associated to either some form of decoherence [3,4], or some effective measurement type of transition [5,6]. In all cases, the past state of the universe cannot be reconstructed from the knowledge of its final observable features only; in violation of the expectations from a unitary fundamental description. |
2 | A generic prediction of most grand unified theories (GUTs) is the production of stable magnetic monopoles at the GUT scale, [7]. The standard inflationary paradigm resolves this issue by postulating that inflation occurs at an energy scale . Consequently, the exponential expansion dilutes any pre-existing magnetic monopoles; furthermore, if the reheating scale also satisfies , no new monopoles are produced after inflation. If this were the case, our model (which occurs at the Planck scale) would not allow the dilution of such monopoles. This conclusion depends, of course, on the validity of the GUT framework, which—though highly elegant—relies on several assumptions. Notably, current bounds on proton decay appear to favor supersymmetric extensions or more refined model constructions that rely on additional assumptions (all of which remain hypothetical at present). Here, we explore a perspective in which monopoles may not be produced at energy scales below the Planck scale in the eventual extension of the standard model of particle physics. |
3 | How can the discreteness scale appear in the context of quantum gravity without conflicting the relativity principle at low energies? Observables in a generally covariant gravitational context are relational, which implies that, in order to measure or interact with the fundamental scale, the associated degrees of freedom must work as the Einstein’s rods and clocks in terms of which the geometry is operationally defined. To serve as measuring notions, such degrees of freedom must break scale invariance. The simplest case is that of a field with mass m where excitations define a particular proper rest frame where not only the energy scale m has an invariant meaning as the rest mass of the excitation, but also, the Planck scale acquires its invariant meaning in relation to that dynamical frame. In turn, photons, an emblematic low-energy scale-invariant degree of freedom, cannot measure (interact with) discreteness as they cannot select any particular rest frame with respect to which a fundamental scale would be meaningful: it simply does not work as a good rod and clock relational excitation to interact with the microscopic dynamical granularity. |
4 | |
5 | The assumption that the semiclassical Equation (4)—as well as Einstein equations—are valid appears as a strong hypothesis at first sight. However, notice that as soon as created at the Planck scale, the perturbations are quickly exponentially stretched into the long wavelength regime where semiclassical equations hold (long with respect with the Planck scale in the co-moving frame). In this sense, we are simply encoding the deviations from semiclassicality (whose precise features can only be described in a full quantum treatment) in the stochasticity of the generation process we postulate. |
6 | We first focus on the quantity , which, from isotropy of the stochastic process, can be written as follows: |
7 | It appears natural to associate with an order parameter of the violation of scale invariance. For instance, for a massive field with mass m. When the present scenario is applied to the Higgs scalar, this identification leads to the correct magnitude for the power spectrum of scalar perturbations [22]. |
8 | As explained in note 4, first-order metric perturbations can be neglected during the De Sitter phase. |
9 | One has to keep in mind that at the Planck scale, the very notion of smooth geometry is expected to be lost and that the particles postulated here might have properties very different from the macroscopic BH solutions which Hawking radiate. A Planck mass particle is most natural from the perspective of quantum gravity; it could be stable due to quantum dynamical bouncing [24] or by being effectively extremal via quantum gravity effects (see [25,26,27] and the very general family of models analyzed in [28]) or if with spin of the order of ℏ (see for instance [29]). This last conservative possibility is attractive as such particles would be Fermions. |
10 | As ranges from (the SM value) to, say, 2000, the mass ranges from to ! While ranges from to , i.e., scales not extraordinarily higher than usual precluding possible conflict with the negative evidence of the presence topological defects in cosmology. |
References
- Akrami, Y.; Arroja, F.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Ballardini, M.; Banday, A.J.; Barreiro, R.B.; Bartolo, N.; Basak, S.; et al. Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 641, A10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ade, P.A.R. et al. [Keck Array and bicep2 Collaborations]. BICEP2/Keck Array x: Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and New BICEP2/Keck Observations through the 2015 Season. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 221301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiefer, C.; Polarski, D.; Starobinsky, A.A. Quantum to classical transition for fluctuations in the early universe. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 1998, 7, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polarski, D.; Starobinsky, A.A. Semiclassicality and decoherence of cosmological perturbations. Class. Quant. Grav. 1996, 13, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez, A.; Sahlmann, H.; Sudarsky, D. On the quantum origin of the seeds of cosmic structure. Class. Quant. Grav. 2006, 23, 2317–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, J.; Vennin, V.; Peter, P. Cosmological Inflation and the Quantum Measurement Problem. Phys. Rev. D 2012, 86, 103524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ’t Hooft, G. Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories. Nucl. Phys. B 1974, 79, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartle, J.B. The Impact of Cosmology on Quantum Mechanics. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1901.03933. [Google Scholar]
- Berjon, J.; Okon, E.; Sudarsky, D. Critical review of prevailing explanations for the emergence of classicality in cosmology. Phys. Rev. D 2021, 103, 043521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez, A.; Sudarsky, D. Comments on challenges for quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 91, 179101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, J.; Perez, A.; Sudarsky, D.; Urrutia, L.; Vucetich, H. Lorentz invariance and quantum gravity: An additional fine-tuning problem? Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 93, 191301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collins, J.; Perez, A.; Sudarsky, D. Lorentz invariance violation and its role in quantum gravity phenomenology. arXiv 2006, arXiv:hep-th/0603002. [Google Scholar]
- Perez, A.; Sudarsky, D.; Bjorken, J.D. A microscopic model for an emergent cosmological constant. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2018, 27, 1846002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez, A.; Sudarsky, D. Dark energy from quantum gravity discreteness. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 122, 221302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashtekar, A.; Singh, P. Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Status Report. Class. Quant. Grav. 2011, 28, 213001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, S. Adiabatic modes in cosmology. Phys. Rev. D 2003, 67, 123504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, S. Cosmology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Peter, P.; Uzan, J.P. Primordial Cosmology; Oxford Graduate Texts; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Brandenberger, R.H. Lectures on the theory of cosmological perturbations. Lect. Notes Phys. 2004, 646, 127–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brahma, S.; Brandenberger, R.; Laliberte, S. Emergent cosmology from matrix theory. JHEP 2022, 3, 067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banks, T.; Fischler, W.; Shenker, S.H.; Susskind, L. M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture. Phys. Rev. D 1997, 55, 5112–5128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amadei, L.; Perez, A. Planckian discreteness as seeds for cosmic structure. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 106, 063528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengochea, G.R.; Leon, G.; Perez, A. Primordial gravitational waves from Planckian discreteness. 2025. [Google Scholar]
- Rovelli, C.; Vidotto, F. Small black/white hole stability and dark matter. Universe 2018, 4, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayward, S.A. Formation and evaporation of regular black holes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 031103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bodendorfer, N.; Mele, F.M.; Münch, J. Effective Quantum Extended Spacetime of Polymer Schwarzschild Black Hole. Class. Quant. Grav. 2019, 36, 195015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baranov, I.P.R.; Borges, H.A.; Sobrinho, F.C.; Carneiro, S. Wormhole solutions in quantum spacetime. Class. Quant. Grav. 2025, 42, 085012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Münch, J.; Perez, A.; Speziale, S.; Viollet, S. Generic features of a polymer quantum black hole. Class. Quant. Grav. 2023, 40, 135003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carneiro, S.; de Holanda, P.C.; Saa, A. Neutrino primordial Planckian black holes. Phys. Lett. B 2021, 822, 136670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrau, A.; Martineau, K.; Moulin, F.; Ngono, J.F. Dark matter as Planck relics without too exotic hypotheses. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 123505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schumann, M. Direct Detection of WIMP Dark Matter: Concepts and Status. J. Phys. G 2019, 46, 103003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carney, D.; Ghosh, S.; Krnjaic, G.; Taylor, J.M. Proposal for gravitational direct detection of dark matter. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 102, 072003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christodoulou, M.; Perez, A.; Rovelli, C. Detecting Planck-Scale Dark Matter with Quantum Interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2024, 133, 111001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bengochea, G.R.; Leon, G.; Perez, A. Planckian discreteness and CMB structure. 2025. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bengochea, G.R.; León, G.; Perez, A. Is Planckian Discreteness Observable in Cosmology? Universe 2025, 11, 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11050139
Bengochea GR, León G, Perez A. Is Planckian Discreteness Observable in Cosmology? Universe. 2025; 11(5):139. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11050139
Chicago/Turabian StyleBengochea, Gabriel R., Gabriel León, and Alejandro Perez. 2025. "Is Planckian Discreteness Observable in Cosmology?" Universe 11, no. 5: 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11050139
APA StyleBengochea, G. R., León, G., & Perez, A. (2025). Is Planckian Discreteness Observable in Cosmology? Universe, 11(5), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11050139